Skip to main content

About your Search

20130221
20130221
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
sources, our pentagon unit tells us the reason for is not the health reasons that were cited on the part of general allen's wife in his statement, but rather that these e-mails probably would have been dredged up bay confirmation hearing for the post at nato that you mentioned, and that our sources say that they were the equivalent for e-mail of phone sex, not the kind of e-mails you would want your wife to see. so they wouldn't survive what we call the jumbo tron test. >> bill: okay. that makes sense. he doesn't want to harm his wife and family. that's what happens. all right. gentlemen, thanks very much. next week, we'll know all about this investigation. >> i'm traveling with secretary kerry in europe and the middle east next week. maybe the week after that. >> bill: all right. you give the best to the senator who is now the secretary. okay? >> i shall. >> bill: come right back, it will be miller time. the president and tiger woods and some racial controversy over the sports illustrated swim suit edition. miller is next >> bill: thanks for staying with us. i'm bill o'reilly. miller ti
connell asked the pentagon to get to the bottom of what he called a very troubling story. i'm writing on behalf of a constituent who has contacted me regarding guantanamo bay prisoners receiving post-9/11 gi bill benefits. the constituent wrote to mcconnell about this disturbing information. after reading an article on the duffel blog. it turns out that duffel blog reports on all kinds of stuff, like syria hosting iraq war reenactors. in other words, it's satire, folks. and now mcconnell's office is defending its actions? they put out a statement saying "senator mcconnell's office is hyper vigilant about finding answers to the questions raised by his constituents." how do you make that up, eric? >> that's a ridiculous statement from senator mcconnell's office. yes, senate offices, house office, they get a lot of request for information. but they do have the internet in those offices. they can -- the staff can google things, and they can look to see if they're true or not. i just can't imagine any senate staffer looking at that story and, you know, with what that constituent was requesting think
sequestration before in the words of the secretary of defense destroys the pentagon. >> everybody hates this thing. but in addition to hating this thing and agreeing that it is a bad idea, it would be very bad for the country and we shouldn't do it, they also all agree that it's the other guy's fault. president obama held a press conference this week in which he said it was the republicans holding the country hostage. meanwhile, republicans have tried to make this a household word, obamaquester. john boehner really wanted to lay the sequester at the feet of the president, the obamaquester, they want you to call it. it might have worked if it were true. the daily beast uncovered this power point slide from a year and a half ago, using it to try to sell republicans on the sequester deal. this power point presentation boasting about all the ways that sequestration was good for republicans, and how they, republicans should vote for it because there was a lot to like, because it look, sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across the board. we like that. vote for that. maybe we
drastic. why wait until today to make these announcements? do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been warning about these sooner? >> first, we started the slowdown in spending on january 10. a number of the measures that i mentioned went into effect shortly after that. significant efforts were made to slow down spending on more draconian actions later. i know that people felt we should have said more earlier. 15 months ago the secretary sent a letter to the u.s. congress saying that the effects of sequestration would be devastating. that was october 2011. after that we testified in august and again in september, we listed every single major item we're talking about. we said that there would be cutbacks in readiness and a unit buys would go down with unit costs growing up. what we did not do was detailed budget planning. i do not regret that. if we did it 60 months ago, we would have been wrong. we would not know that congress would have changed the size and the date and we would not have incurred the degradation route. we sounded the alarm in every way that we could.
until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs. we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's securi
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)